The F1 driver transfer discussion/speculation archiveFormula 1 

  • Thread starter NotThePrez
  • 3,041 comments
  • 199,568 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
Was he interested in/trying to take legal action against Sauber before the winter testing, where they've shown to have reliability and pace?
 
GTPorsche
It's only messy because VDG decided to throw a childish tantrum.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily... if indeed Sauber DID give VdG a signed contract without including correct escape clauses then they may have set themselves up for a fall. After all, who here can believe the chutzpah of VdG? Perhaps Sauber thought he would just go away.

AnfLaw
So van der Gardes' case weakens... but on the flip side, if he was to win... both Ericsson and Nasr could walk?.
Click to expand...

The Twit linked earlier shows both Ericsson and Nasr in court, seems that they both intend to fight for their seats. Doesn't like as though either plan to walk.
 
Sauber are also arguing that even if VDG wins, he cannot race - he is of a completely different height and weight to Ericsson and Nasr, and with the C34 being a totally different car, he would need a seat fitting and customised seat belts, and they cannot have that ready in time for Friday. And even if they could, he isn't covered by their insurance.
 
Wish I could say it feels good to be right that this would harm the start of the season for Sauber no matter the outcome, but it not good. Both drivers have to worry about their job because of some guy much older that should just go on to other places. I'm not a fan of the two current but they shouldn't have to worry about a legal suit being the reason they don't get to drive.

And Sauber had enough issues off the back leg of last year. It makes me wish Peter would take the helm again.
 
Somewhat talked about already GTPorsche, but good to see a full article on it. However, the PDR part doesn't make sense, he was a test driver at Sauber if I recall, so in theory he should have had a seat or a adjustment placing for this situation. Similar to how K-Mag had a seat inlet even though he didn't expect (nor anyone really) to see Alonso miss Australia
 
prisonermonkeys
Readers may also recall that de la Rosa was a McLaren test driver at the time, and took his seat with him to Sauber.
Click to expand...

Ah it was McLaren, that's right thanks for clearing that up. But still on point the guy had a seat and VGD doesn't. The argument seems legit from Sauber on that front.
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
But still on point the guy had a seat and VGD doesn't. The argument seems legit from Sauber on that front.
Click to expand...
Sauber reckon that it will take two weeks to fit a seat, but VDG's lawyers claim he had one done in three days. They didn't, however, say where he had it done - not that it matters; at Caterham, he had the luxury of having the car built around him, while in GP2 and Formula Renault 3.5, they were spec chassis.

But even if they can argue around that, I don't think that they can work around Sauber's la k of insurance.
 
I agree, that lack of insurance for him is the biggest issue. I wonder if Sauber tried an out of court settlement before it came to this, if they did that would help the fans understand if this truly is the desperation of one man to have a racing seat to try and prove one last time he is some great racer that has been looked over.
 
I imagine that they did try. It is obvious something was signed, and that Sauber tried to undo it. If not by exit clause, then certainly by way if settling. Van der Garde's legal team and supporters have tried to pin this on improper management, but I wonder if that's not a sexist attack on Monisha Kaltenborn. Over at Autosport they're openly accusing her of incompetence and destroying the team's reputation.
 
Update: the judge will apparently hand down his verdict on whether van der Garde can drive at 10am local time on Wednesday.
 
Glad there is more information available here, as Autosport only highlighted Sauber's defense being based around the lack of safety involved when putting a driver without testing miles in a new F1 car. Just that statement alone sounds like clutching at straws since it happens so regularly, however not having a seat or belts ready for him would back that up. Plus the insurance issue would be a big no as well.

Contracts are very difficult items, however you would expect the wording to be clear as well. It seems strange that they are arguing over exactly who the contract was between when that is surely clear within the first pages of the document?
 
Did Sauber at any point of the hearing contested the validity of VDG's contract? From the reported arguments that does not seems to be the case. The announced 2015 drivers line-up created a bit of a controversy if I remember correctly, with Sutil even wondering who would actually end up in the car, considering the (at least four) drivers supposedly in order to claim a seat. It looks to me Sauber may have put themselves in a delicate situation here, and clearly failed to "sort things out internally".
 
The Sauber defense seems pretty weak to me. All they do is talk about reasons they can't let VDG drive (unsafe, no insurance, no seat, etc.). No talk about the contract. If Sauber doesn't have a fitting seat, insurance, etc. then that's Saubers own problem, they should've managed that earlier, they're in default. Those arguments are completely irrelevant to the question if VDG signed a contract with Sauber to race in 2015 and is entitled to his seat in Australia.

What VDG does now is in my opinion his full right and has nothing to do with his racing capabilities or his age. If he indeed has a signed contract he's simply coming up for his own rights and Sauber is the one who made a mess . By also signing Ericsson and Nasr they've got themselves even in more trouble. Funny quote by one of their lawyers; 'we should've been notified about VDG's Swiss arbitration case, but where not'. That seems to be a direct attack at the address of Sauber.

I like the fact that someone finally stands up against a team that doesn't respect a contract and behaves like it doesn't exist. Seems like the management of Sauber made a mess and they should know this could potentially destroy a career. Whether that would make him unpopular is a question, but if it's true then Sauber should be the one who's unpopular.
 
GTPorsche
It wasn't a contract to race, it was a sponsor contract.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for this? because everywhere I read there is a 'contract' to race in 2015, not specifically what type of contract (exact content is unknown as far as I know).
 
Pilitev
Do you have a source for this? because everywhere I read there is a 'contract' to race in 2015, not specifically what type of contract (exact content is unknown as far as I know).
Click to expand...
A Melbourne-based journalist was live-Tweeting the initial hearing yesterday. That was one of the first arguments Sauber put forward - that the contract was not with van der Garde, but with his backers, and that it was not a contract to race, but essentially one that reserved him in case they wanted to make an offer in the future, a kind of pre-contract. It's something that a lot of teams do. Then they went on to outline the way van der Garde isn't covered by their insurance and that they don't have the right equipment for him.

I also image that they would have submitted the contracts for Ericsson and Nasr to highlight the differences, but I cannot find any evidence of that.
 
Soundtrack
It almost looks like Sauber are trying to invalidate the Swiss Arbitration ruling on the basis of a procedural flaw.
Click to expand...
Of course they're trying to invalidate it - van der Garde is trying to get the Supreme Court to uphold the Swiss court's ruling, rather than trying to get them to rule absolutely.

But I don't think Sauber's argument is that it's a procedural flaw - rather, it's a question of who the contract was actually with. We distil it down to "van der Garde signed a contract with Sauber", but the reality is that contracts are lengthy and complicated documents. There is a whole lot of scope for something to go wrong, be it procedurally or from one party misinterpreting its nature.
 
Ruling absolutely would require a lot more time for the Australian Court, in order to completely analyze and understand the complex paperwork involved here indeed. A process, you can guess, has been meticulously done by the Swiss Arbitration.
 
Soundtrack
Ruling absolutely would require a lot more time for the Australian Court, in order to completely analyze and understand the complex paperwork involved here indeed. A process, you can guess, has been meticulously done by the Swiss Arbitration.
Click to expand...
Which is why I'm guessing that van der Garde's game plan is to push for a quick resolution in his favour, get the seat, and use that as a precedent in any subsequent cases as the championship moves on. By the time anyone has a chance to fully analyse the contract, he'll be firmly planted in the seat.

It's a pretty dirty move, but he'll gave a hard time getting around the safety and insurance arguments. He claims he has had a seat made in three days, but that required his presence. There's no way Sauber could make a seat and get it out to Australia in time for the race.
 
On the seat fitting business, is it not strange that he hasn't had a seat fitting already? If Nasr or Ericsson were unable to race (I mean through an injury or illness, rather than legal dealings) then what would Sauber do?...
 
prisonermonkeys
By the time anyone has a chance to fully analyse the contract,...
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the arbitrator(s) voluntary mandated by the two opposing parties haven't had that opportunity? Apparently Swiss arbitration processes do benefit an international reputation that could make them easily enforceable in many countries around the world.

If, for whatever valid reasons, Sauber are indeed not respecting their initial engagements, isn't up to them to fix the situation in order to avoid a complete predictable mess?
 
Soundtrack
Are you suggesting that the arbitrator(s) voluntary mandated by the two opposing parties haven't had that opportunity?
Click to expand...
If the lawyer representing Ericsson and Nasr is to be believed, yes. He said they had no idea that van der Garde had gone to the Swiss court, and they had to take leave to appear in the Melbourne court. It seems pretty clear that he blindsided them, so I have to wonder what else might have happened.

If, for whatever valid reasons, Sauber are indeed not respecting their initial engagements, isn't up to them to fix the situation in order to avoid a complete predictable mess?
Click to expand...
Yes, but their argument is that it wasn't a contract to race - it was a pre-contract with van der Garde's sponsors, one that essentially arranged the details between them pending the offer of a full-time drive. That offer was never made - van der Garde himself denied having signed anything as late as August, despite now claiming to have signed the contract in June.

Evidently something somewhere along the line changed. Van der Garde made half a dozen FP1 appearances last year, and the team were obviously interested in him. But even after they took Ericsson, it was still weeks - if not months - before they settled on Nasr. What changes for van der Garde? I highly doubt that the team simply got a better offer.

But let me ask you - why didn't van der Garde go to the FIA Contract Review Board? They're supposed to be the first port of call for this sort of thing.

I suspect that van der Garde signed a pre-contract and was expecting a full offer, which never came, and he is now challenging the status quo. If that's the case, then it comes down to what the pre-contract actually offered - in cases with a pre-contract, a team usually has the option of making a driver an offer, rather than an obligation to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Posts

Back